Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Jiechao Co. Ltd. and Liquan Co. Ltd.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC’s motions for summary judgment against Jiechao Co. Ltd. and Liquan Co. Ltd. in a trademark infringement action involving products sold online. The court awarded $5,000 in statutory damages against Liquan and $25,000 against Jiechao, denied attorney’s fees, and entered permanent injunctive relief. The defendants’ motion to modify an asset restraint was denied as moot, and the civil case was terminated.

Holdings

1. Liquan was liable as a matter of law for infringing Sony's PlayStation controller-symbol trademark, and the undisputed facts established willful infringement or, at minimum, willful blindness amounting to actual knowledge under the Lanham Act.
2. Sony was entitled to $5,000 in statutory damages against Liquan, rather than the requested $50,000.
3. Sony was entitled to summary judgment on Jiechao's liability for infringement of all five asserted registered trademarks, and Jiechao's infringement was willful or, at minimum, willfully blind.
4. Sony was entitled to $25,000 in statutory damages against Jiechao, rather than the requested $200,000.
5. Neither the claim against Liquan nor the claim against Jiechao was an exceptional case warranting attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
6. Sony was entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from advertising, offering for sale, or selling products that infringe Sony's PlayStation trademarks.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Sony was entitled to summary judgment on liability for Liquan's infringement of the PlayStation controller-symbol trademark.
2. Whether Liquan's infringement was willful for purposes of statutory damages under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether Sony was entitled to summary judgment on Jiechao's infringement of five registered PlayStation-related trademarks, including the mark Jiechao specifically disputed.
4. Whether Jiechao's infringement was willful for purposes of statutory damages.
5. What statutory-damages awards were appropriate for Liquan and Jiechao under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).
6. Whether Sony was entitled to attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).
7. Whether Sony was entitled to permanent injunctive relief and whether the defendants' motion to modify the asset restraint remained justiciable.

Disposition

other